|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
History became legend and legend became myth and those things which should not have been forgotten were lost
by Betty Luks
One of our readers asked for comments on an
article he had come across: Secrets of the Bank of England Revealed,
in which, the following claims are made: In 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers
landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, They were Protestant Christians
sent out by that great Scot -- King James VI (of Scotland) and (became)
James I (of the United Kingdom). They were the chosen people and God
gave them the best land in the world because He always saves the best
for last and as a heritage because they came to seek God
Because of the diligent work of writer Anthony Cooney, (Social Credit Aspects), we now know that the myth, many of us believed, that the pilgrim fathers were Quakers, is historically untrue. It would seem the person/s who wrote about The Secret of the Bank of England , also suffer the same illusion -- or they are deliberately intent upon propagating the myth.
An accompanying picture depicts the pilgrim fathers as wearing Quaker costumes. Just as, as Cooney relates, Alun Villiers did in the re-enactment of the Mayflower crossing. He was Captain of the Mayflower replica which crossed the Atlantic in 1957, and attended a civic reception at Plymouth wearing Quaker costume. Cooney believes such an illusion suggests a source, and a source suggests a policy. The purpose of such a policy is not difficult to determine. The Quakers were tolerant and quietest, the Puritans were not.
Lets consider some of the claims and the facts of history: ? The Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, 1620. George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, (Quakers) was not born until four years after the Mayflower voyage?
These Protestant Christians, the Pilgrim Fathers,
were sent out to the New World by that great Scot, King James VI & I.
The background to British North America is that Jamestown and The Old
Dominion of Virginia was established in 1607, thirteen years before
the Mayflower sailed. The Mayflowers intended destination, in company
with a supply ship which had to return to port, was Virginia, and the
purpose was to reinforce the Puritan element there. In 1619, the Episcopalians
had deposed Argall, the Puritan governor of Virginia, and there was
clearly a determination to reverse this set-back to the Whig-Puritan
As a chosen people . God gave them the best land as a heritage. The Mayflowers destination was not the barren coast of Massachusetts, (the ship was blown off-course) nor was the intention the founding of a new colony?
Because they came to seek God not Gold Most were poor and brought very little money with them from the Old World. In fact, the six hundred families who trace their descent from the Mayflowers passengers now constitute an American aristocracy. Obviously they found gold as well as God. The word Fathers suggests originators, and not surprisingly there is a widely held belief that the Mayflowers passengers were the first British settlers and hence the Founding Fathers of British America.
Anthony Cooneys following observation is so relevant to these days of liberal Judaeo-Christianity: The triumph of Puritanism in America through the Mayflower myth is still resonating. Hybridised with secular Liberalism your common or garden Puritan of today need have no Christian beliefs whatsoever he has moved effortlessly to the prohibition of tobacco, and from there to the prohibition of flirting, flattery, gallantry and thought itself by the dogmas of Political Correctness; a charter for the bigot and the bully which the Mayflowers cargo would have understood perfectly.
Editors note: We have touched on but one of the myths in the article, Secrets of the Bank of England Revealed, over time we will deal with some of the other myths it circulates. For a more factual account of the history of the Bank of England and the Money Changers the following books are recommended: The Enemy Within the Empire by Eric D. Butler; The Tallies, a Tangled Tale & the Beginning & the End by David Astle (contains a copy of the virtually suppressed document, the Charter of the Bank of England; The Creature of Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin; A History of Monetary Crimes by Alexander del Mar; I Want the Earth plus Five Per Cent, author unknown.
CANADAS HATE LEGISLATION AND FREE SPEECH
by Wallace Klinck
Most especially it has the effect of making perfectly justifiable and relevant criticism of "public" policy, all too often initiated by minority pressure, an "illegal" act. In other words it means the suspension of open and meaningful (or even non-meaningful, for that matter) political debate -- in effect the end of the democratic process.
Over time it virtually guarantees the erosion of the existing culture -- not by natural evolutionary change but by "legal" force imposed from "on high," regardless of the actual desires of the general public. I and other citizens do not need the state to tell us what to think. As citizens the responsibility rests upon us to think independently and to give instructions to our representatives -- not the reverse.
"Hate" is a subjective matter and the courts can hardly read an individual's mind. Further, one person's "hate" may often be another person's "love." Again, if we can know love, we must be able to distinguish and criticise that which is in opposition to it. Such criticism may actually be rendered out of genuine consideration of the best interests of those criticized and/or of society in part or in whole. To brand this as "hateful" and therefore criminal is pure nonsense, deceit and/or hypocrisy--a mischievous strategy enabling the elimination of political opponents before an issue is even subject to public consideration.
The interests who promote this sort of outrageous policy appear to assume that their position of power is impregnable and that their moral and intellectual infallibility justify the assumption that "might makes right."
If the state interferes with the free flow of
information, it, in effect, attempts to control what citizens think
because without access to all available information one cannot make
realistic assessments. The whole concept of democracy is therefore subverted.
This is blatant totalitarianism -- more than reminiscent of Bolshevism.
Bureaucratic decree based upon the specious or tenuous notion of "a balance of probabilities" replaces "proof beyond doubt."
Canadian "Human Rights" legislation is a violation
of citizens' rights and protections derived essentially from Christian
principles and going back to the British Constitution as evolved from
the Common Law, from the Magna Carta, the British Bill of Rights, etc.
Much effort and sacrifice has been expended over history to secure these
rights and protections and to let them go by default is a betrayal of
everyone present and of those who struggled historically to secure them.
The suggestion that Canadians are so irresponsible, ignorant and fundamentally vicious that they cannot be allowed to access information and debate matters which relate to public policy is simply outrageous. It is a denial of even a pretence of recognizing the full democratic process as a legitimate and proper function and right of the citizenry. Such a position allows the possibility for a minority to usurp, without critical examination and with impunity, the rights and powers of citizens to determine policy in a democratic state.
Canada: a Constitutional Monarchy with Representative
HISTORIANS JEWISH LINKS
from the pen of Germar Rudolf
Herr Munnier inquired about this in disbelief, but David Irving happily confirmed it; yes, his mother was Jewish, but he was never interested in this fact, nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition. He therefore never considered it to have any relevance. Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple. The interesting question...Why was it not raised during Irvings libel case against Lipstadt? I bet all sides knew that an atheist Jew (Irving) was fighting against orthodox Jews (Lipstadt, van Pelt, and others). It was, and continues to be, a case of Jewish in-fighting, if you wish to label it that way. Of course, Holocaust promoters can have no interest in advertising that the main exponent of Holocaust Denial is a Jew. Oy vey, what a publicity disaster that would be! (Even though Irving is, strictly seen, not even a Holocaust revisionist, but merely a benevolent observer.) At the end of the day, one can argue that it doesnt matter what heritage Irvings mother had, at least not in regard to where the historical truth is to be found. But for many individuals it might make a difference in their personal attitude toward revisionism. For me personally, this is only an interesting, curious, ironic footnote, the most interesting aspect being the reaction of others to this revelation. Germar Rudolf, email@example.com
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|